In the discussion of immigration and multiculturalism many people seem to forget, that every society and culture is created and upheld by certain kind of people.

In the discussion over immigration and multiculturalism, many people seem to forget that each society and culture is produced and maintained by certain kinds of people.

European culture and modern western society is created by white people.

European culture and modern Western society have been produced by white people.

One could see in Africa societies and cultures created by black people, if there were no [white people there building] railroads, airplanes, streets with asphalt, stone houses, electricity, telephone[s], television[s], etc.

One would be able to go to Africa to take a look at cultures and
societies produced by black people, if railways, airports, concrete pavements, stone walled houses, electricity, telephones, television and the like didn’t exist there; all of these things have been brought to Africa by white people.

People of Middle-East have created culture of desert-living tribes, that is so called islamic culture. [Middle-Eastern peoples have created in the desert a culture of tribal shepherds, the so called Islamic culture.]

Middle Eastern people have produced a culture of desert dwelling herder tribes, i.e. the so-called Islamic culture.

People of East-Asia, mostly Japanese and Chinese, created in their times an society, where standard of living and technical ability was centuries higher than in Europe.

East Asians- mostly the Japanese and the Chinese- once built a society whose standard of living and level of technological knowhow were higher than in Europe for centuries.

Collectivistic, authoric way of thinking, typical for Asians, lead however to stagnation, because of which for example America and Africa were conquered by Europeans, not by Japanese or Chinese.

The collectivist, authoritarian mindset typical of the Asians however lead to stagnation, which is e.g. why the Americas and Africa were colonised by the Europeans, not by the Japanese or the Chinese.

Rationalism and individualism is typical for European way of thinking and a necessary result of these is support of private property and free market-economy. For this reason industrial revolution happened in Europe and not in Asia.

Rationalism and individualism, along with the support for private
property and free enterprise which inevitably follow from them, are the quintessential hallmark of European thought. This is why the Industrial Revolution came about in Europe, and not in Asia.

Asians [are able to live in an European society] can live in a European society, because they have no problems to live by its rules. In their own societies Asians don’t want to implement values of European enlightenment philosophy, because they really see no use for them.

Asians are able to live in a European society because they experience no difficulty following its rules. However, Asians do not want to uphold the values of the Enlightenment in their own societies, because they simply fail to see the need to do so.

Asians think, that for example freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association and gathering and free elections are unnecessary nonsense. Idolatry of leaders [The serving of leaders] as absolutist auctorities, support of official ideology of [the]state without critic[ism] and persecution of dissidents are normal, self-evident and necessary things for Asian people.

From the Asian perspective things like freedom of thought, religion, conscience and association, and free elections, appear to be superfluous nonsense. Asians consider the absolute authority of the leader, uncritical support for the official state dogma and persecution of dissidents to be normal, self-evident and indispensable.

[In the opinions of Africans] robberies, rapes, nepotism, corruption, clan-warfare, superstition and murders committed by momentary impulse are normal things [goings-on] for African people. If Africans form majority in some country outside of Africa, this country transforms into Africa.

For the Africans, looting, rape, nepotism, corruption, clan warfare, superstition and impulsive homicide are business as usual. If Africans come to form the majority in a country outside Africa, the country turns African.

This has happened for example in Haiti, where voodoo-culture and society torn by bolshevistic anarchy strangely reminds us of African culture and society.

This has already happened e.g. in Haiti, which curiously resembles its African counterparts because its society has been torn apart by Bolshevist-style anarchy and voodoo culture.

In the USA and Canada Negroes behave in [a] somewhat acceptable way only, when they are clearly in minority. Surrounding white society, on the other hand with machinery of violence (police, prisons, armed self-defence, KKK-style vigilantes), on the other hand by social and cultural pressure, forces Negroes to adapt to western culture.

In the United States and in Canada, negroes behave bearably only when in clear minority. The surrounding white society- on the one hand with its coercive apparatus consisting of the police, the prisons, armed self-defence of the populace, and vigilantes in the KKK vein, and on the other via socio-cultural pressure- forces negroes to adapt to Western culture.

White Americans are of course Europeans, so society dominated by them is a European society in America.

White Americans are obviously Europeans, and therefore, North American society, which is dominated by white people, is a European society, which only happens to be located in America.

Correspondingly black Americans are Africans living in America, so areas dominated by them are African islands in the sea of European white society.

Correspondingly, black Americans are basically Africans living in America, which means that areas dominated by them are like African isles in the midst of a sea of a white European society.

Areas with negro-majority of course would now differ more of white areas, if they were independent city-states. Because they belong to the United States, there is the same law in force than in other places in the United States as well. It is, as if the surrounding white society would occupy these negro-enclaves by upkeeping at least some what the laws of white people also within negro-ghettoes. Negroes themselves wouldn’t have created those laws and they wouldn’t try to upkeep them.

Were black-majority areas to be independent city states, they would naturally be even more different from white neighbourhoods than they currently are. However, since also black ghettoes belong to the United States, they abide by US law. It is as though these negro enclaves were occupied by the surrounding white society, with white man’s law imposed on the ghetto by police power alone. If legislative power were held by black people themselves, they would not pass similar laws, and would not try to uphold them.

Negroes obey laws regulated by white society only, when they are concretedly upkept with harsh discipline. If discipline softens, Negroes african biological character of people is manifested in their behaviour.

Negroes only abide by the laws of white society when concretely forced to do so, with stern discipline. Come laxity, and the African biological characteristics of the negroes once again manifest themselves in their behaviour.

Even a lion can obey man in circus, when it is kept in hard discipline by whip. If man stops upkeeping hard discipline with lion, lion starts jumping on mans face.

In a circus even a lion can obey man when kept in check by a whip. But once harsh discipline is no longer maintained, the lion will transgress.

Biology is a destiny. Living creatures can’t do anything for their biology. Every opposition of sociology and biology, for example feminism, is based on attempt to refute mans character as a biological being.

Biology is destiny. Living beings cannot escape their biology. All opposition to sociobiology, including feminism, is based on the denial of the nature of man as a biological species.

Human is however animal, homo sapiens. Man hasn’t been created as a picture of any god[in [Man hasn’t been created in any God’s image.]. There is [are] no gods and nobody has created human [people].

Still, man is an animal, homo sapiens. He was not created in the image of a god. There are no gods and nobody created man.

[A]Human is biological matter modified by genes, which obey certain biological rules. Like a man needs certain kind of food to stay alive, there are certain rules related to aggressivity, sexuality and intelligence in mans actions. [Kenneth: I would have translated it a bit different but nonetheless it has the same meaning]

Humans are biomass, shaped by their genes and subject to certain biological laws. Just as a person needs a certain amount of nutrition of a certain kind in order to survive, there are in human action certain regularities having to do e.g. with aggression, sexuality and intelligence.

An army created by 100 000 men is stronger than army created by 100 000 women, ceteris paribus. Male population of Finland does more rapes than female population of Finland. Intelligence level of population of 500 million white people is higher than in population of 500 million whites and 100 million Negroes.

Ceteris paribus, an army of one hundred thousand men is stronger than an army of one hundred thousand women. The male population of Finland commits more acts of rape in total than the female population. A population of 500 million whites has a higher median IQ than a population of 500 million whites and 100 million negroes.

Bringing Negroes to Europe lowers the mean intelligence level [lowers the average intelligence level] of European population, because Negroes have lower median-IQ than whites.

Importing negroes into Europe lowers the average level of intelligence of the European population because negroes have a lower median IQ than whites.

There is a positive correlation between intelligence and standard of living. Causality goes in both
directions: On the one hand increase in standard of living increases intelligence level by decreasing for example brain-damages caused by malnutrition in population, on the other hand more intelligent population can create higher standard of living for them.

A positive correlation exists between intelligence and standard
of living. The causality goes both ways. On the one hand a rising
standard of living increases the level of intelligence for example by decreasing the incidence of brain damage caused by malnutrition. On the other hand an intelligent population is more capable of securing itself a high standard of living.

When the mean intelligence level decreases, the standard of living of the country decreases. Stupid people can’t upkeep high standard of
living, because standard of living is the same as the real value of sum of all production of items and services per capita; stupid people can upkeep as valuable total production of commodities as intelligent people, so a more stupid society has a lower standard of living. So bringing Negroes to Europe would lower the standard of living in Europe, even if Negroes wouldn’t be social bums living on taxpayers money.

When the mean level of intelligence is lowered, the standard of living of a country is lowered. Stupid people cannot maintain a high standard of living because the standard of living equals the sum real value of the production of goods and services per
capita; stupid people are not able to maintain as high a value of
production as smarter people are, so a stupider society has a lower standard of living. Hence, importing negroes into Europe would lower the European standard of living even if negroes weren’t bums living off taxpayer money.

In addition to this Negroes nowadays are mostly unemployed or other parasites living on European taxpayers money. When more bums living on taxpayers money come to Europe, there is less tax money. The more Negroes come to Europe, the less there can be afforded to public health care, education, pensions, childcare, etc. in Europe.

To top it off, nowadays negroes mostly remain unemployed or otherwise parasitise the European taxpayer. With more bums living off taxpayer money arriving in Europe, there is less revenue to go around. The more negroes come to Europe, the less Europe can afford public healthcare, education, pensions, daycare etc.

Negroes commit more crimes than white people. When more Negroes are brought to Europe, crime increases. This is not any picture of future, but a realised scenario. In Finland immigrants do more then over 20 times more rapes per capita than Finnish people.

Negroes commit more crimes than white people. When negroes are brought into Europe, crime increases. This is not a prediction, but a scenario that has already materialised. In Finland immigrants commit over 20 times more acts of rape per capita than the Finns do.

The more there is immigrants from Africa and Middle-East in Europe, the more there is crime in Europe.

The more immigrants of African and Middle Eastern origin there are in Europe, the more Europe has crime.

If all non-white people nowadays living in Europe would move back to their countries of origin, crime rate would decrease several tens of percents in Europe.

If all the nonwhites living in Europe today were to move back to their respective countries of origin, crime rates in Europe would fall by tens of percentage points.

7 Comments (and 3 trackbacks)

Better. The old should of course be trashed. I intend to do exactly that and edit the webpage of his I have on my site with the updated translation.
Each of his points still to be expanded upon to the point that the contradictions and misinformation in some of them are resolved and corrected.
I don’t know that Mikko realizes it but he can win his case with the authorities here if he can prove his points valid. We don’t believe that they are all valid at this time. It is a subject that must be dealt with. We are all together on the Internet. Globalization has occurred on the Internet. It is all over here. We are Globalized.
We are now dealing with how to communicate and relate to one another. Understanding differences is essential to what we are doing.
I hope that Mikkos ideas can be made useful. It is an important subject that he has brought up.

The research I have done over the last few weeks indicates that many of Mikko’s key views on Blacks – probably based on such research as that done by Richard Lynn – is highly flawed and poorly reasoned.

I’ll write more about it soon.

For anyone interested in the subject of racial differences I recommend reading some of Thomas Sowell’s essays on this subject.

I don’t see that this translation changes the meaning of the argument at all. Particularly disturbing is the following portion, in which he claims:

“In the United States and in Canada, negroes behave bearably only when in clear minority. The surrounding white society – on the one hand with its coercive apparatus consisting of the police, the prisons, armed self-defence of the populace, and vigilantes in the KKK vein, and on the other via socio-cultural pressure – forces negroes to adapt to Western culture.”

The essential characteristic that defines man is Reason, and because Reason is his means of survival he requires to be free from coercion. This is the origin of Natural Rights. It is because we all share this requirement regardless of race that a just government does not see skin color, but treats everyone equally. However Mikko argues that coercion against black Americans produced some value, that it civilized them. Not only is this a careless and ignorant claim, but it seems to regard “negroes” not as reasoning creatures or as men at all, but as animals to be tamed.

What a great service you are doing. I plan to print this post and do as you are doing, give it some thought before posting on it. I can make some comments regarding “race relations” in the United States. I have not always believed so, but I am coming more to believe that we do have some sort of “cultural” memory. Gets way to esoteric to discuss and that is not my intent but we do seem to have some sort of “memory” that lends us to certain types of behaviors or seems to have us revert to certain types of behaviors that may be considered to exist way way back. Why did Europe for a time and segments of America today foster individuality and the mentality of individual rights and responsibilities where as some folks defer their individual rights to the “rights” of the group?

Based on the discussion here and my own knowledge and experience in the United States, I have to wonder how much of a role so-called religious indoctrination as well as “cultural” memory play a role in “society” and how much the “religion” modifies itself to fit its doctrine to the “cultural” memory.

The beauty is that we do not have to agree or disagree on any or all aspects of a discussion to get to the heart of issues facing all of us.

Mikko has made a mistake in his post. He has brought in 100,000,000 immigrants into an aria with 500,000,000 natives. These two groups trade with each other. Each receives values that are worth more to it than those that it gives up. Both groups are better off because of the exchange. The fact or lack there of that the aggregate population might be more or less intelligent than it was before means nothing to anyone except statisticians.

Europe’s real problem with immigration is that it is dealing with a predatory and static culture. It is trying to mix that culture with a culture that thrives on change. In spite of the people differences, Europe should be seeking immigrants for countries that might have messed up cultures and uneducated people but do have cultures that are not frozen in a book.